Problem
I'm trying to use z3 to disprove reachability assertions on a Petri net.
So I declare N state variables v0,..v_n-1 which are positive integers, one for each place of a Petri net.
My main strategy given an atomic proposition P on states is the following :
compute (with an exterior engine) any "easy" positive invariants as linear constraints on the variables, of the form alpha_0 * v_0 + ... = constant with only positive or zero alpha_i, then check_sat if any state reachable under these constraints satisfies P, if unsat conclude, else
compute (externally to z3) generalized invariants, where the alpha_i can be negative as well and check_sat, conclude if unsat, else
add one positive variable t_i per transition of the system, and assert the Petri net state equation, that any reachable state has a Parikh firing count vector (a value of t_i's) such that M0 the initial state + product of this Parikh vector by incidence matrix gives the reached state. So this one introduces many new variables, and involves some multiplication of variables, but stays a linear integer programming problem.
I separate the steps because since I want UNSAT, any check_sat that returns UNSAT stops the procedure, and the last step in particular is very costly.
I have issues with larger models, where I get prohibitively long answer times or even the dreaded "unknown" answer, particularly when adding state equation (step 3).
Background
So besides splitting the problem into incrementally harder segments I've tried setting logic to QF_LRA rather than QF_LIA, and declaring the variables as Real than integers.
This overapproximation is computationally friendly (z3 is fast on these !) but unfortunately for many models the solutions are not integers, nor is there an integer solution.
So I've tried setting Reals, but specifying that each variable is either =0 or >=1, to remove solutions with fractions of firings < 1. This does eliminate spurious solutions, but it "kills" z3 (timeout or unknown) in many cases, the problem is obviously much harder (e.g. harder than with just integers).
Examples
I don't have a small example to show, though I can produce some easily. The problem is if I go for QF_LIA it gets prohibitively slow at some number of variables. As a metric, there are many more transitions than places, so adding the state equation really ups the variable count.
This code is generating the examples I'm asking about.
This general presentation slides 5 and 6 express the problem I'm encoding precisely, and slides 7 and 8 develop the results of what "unsat" gives us, if you want more mathematical background.
I'm generating problems from the Model Checking Contest, with up to thousands of places (primary variables) and in some cases above a hundred thousand transitions. These are extremum, the middle range is a few thousand places, and maybe 20 thousand transitions that I would really like to deal with.
Reals + the greater than 1 constraint is not a good solution even for some smaller problems. Integers are slow from the get-go.
I could try Reals then iterate into Integers if I get a non integral solution, I have not tried that, though it involves pretty much killing and restarting the solver it might be a decent approach on my benchmark set.
What I'm looking for
I'm looking for some settings for Z3 that can better help it deal with the problems I'm feeding it, give it some insight.
I have some a priori idea about what could solve these problems, traditionally they've been fed to ILP solvers. So I'm hoping to trigger a simplex of some sort, but maybe there are conditions preventing z3 from using the "good" solution strategy in some cases.
I've become a decent level SMT/Z3 user, but I've never played with the fine settings of :options, to guide the solver.
Have any of you tried feeding what are basically ILP problems to SMT, and found options settings or particular encodings that help it deploy the right solutions ? thanks.
Related
I am working on a problem for which we aim to solve with deep Q learning. However, the problem is that training just takes too long for each episode, roughly 83 hours. We are envisioning to solve the problem within, say, 100 episode.
So we are gradually learning a matrix (100 * 10), and within each episode, we need to perform 100*10 iterations of certain operations. Basically we select a candidate from a pool of 1000 candidates, put this candidate in the matrix, and compute a reward function by feeding the whole matrix as the input:
The central hurdle is that the reward function computation at each step is costly, roughly 2 minutes, and each time we update one entry in the matrix.
All the elements in the matrix depend on each other in the long term, so the whole procedure seems not suitable for some "distributed" system, if I understood correctly.
Could anyone shed some lights on how we look at the potential optimization opportunities here? Like some extra engineering efforts or so? Any suggestion and comments would be appreciated very much. Thanks.
======================= update of some definitions =================
0. initial stage:
a 100 * 10 matrix, with every element as empty
1. action space:
each step I will select one element from a candidate pool of 1000 elements. Then insert the element into the matrix one by one.
2. environment:
each step I will have an updated matrix to learn.
An oracle function F returns a quantitative value range from 5000 ~ 30000, the higher the better (roughly one computation of F takes 120 seconds).
This function F takes the matrix as the input and perform a very costly computation, and it returns a quantitative value to indicate the quality of the synthesized matrix so far.
This function is essentially used to measure some performance of system, so it do takes a while to compute a reward value at each step.
3. episode:
By saying "we are envisioning to solve it within 100 episodes", that's just an empirical estimation. But it shouldn't be less than 100 episode, at least.
4. constraints
Ideally, like I mentioned, "All the elements in the matrix depend on each other in the long term", and that's why the reward function F computes the reward by taking the whole matrix as the input rather than the latest selected element.
Indeed by appending more and more elements in the matrix, the reward could increase, or it could decrease as well.
5. goal
The synthesized matrix should let the oracle function F returns a value greater than 25000. Whenever it reaches this goal, I will terminate the learning step.
Honestly, there is no effective way to know how to optimize this system without knowing specifics such as which computations are in the reward function or which programming design decisions you have made that we can help with.
You are probably right that the episodes are not suitable for distributed calculation, meaning we cannot parallelize this, as they depend on previous search steps. However, it might be possible to throw more computing power at the reward function evaluation, reducing the total time required to run.
I would encourage you to share more details on the problem, for example by profiling the code to see which component takes up most time, by sharing a code excerpt or, as the standard for doing science gets higher, sharing a reproduceable code base.
Not a solution to your question, just some general thoughts that maybe are relevant:
One of the biggest obstacles to apply Reinforcement Learning in "real world" problems is the astoundingly large amount of data/experience required to achieve acceptable results. For example, OpenAI in Dota 2 game colletected the experience equivalent to 900 years per day. In the original Deep Q-network paper, in order to achieve a performance close to a typicial human, it was required hundres of millions of game frames, depending on the specific game. In other benchmarks where the input are not raw pixels, such as MuJoCo, the situation isn't a lot better. So, if you don't have a simulator that can generate samples (state, action, next state, reward) cheaply, maybe RL is not a good choice. On the other hand, if you have a ground-truth model, maybe other approaches can easily outperform RL, such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (e.g., Deep Learning for Real-Time Atari Game Play Using Offline Monte-Carlo Tree Search Planning or Simple random search provides a competitive approach to reinforcement learning). All these ideas a much more are discussed in this great blog post.
The previous point is specially true for deep RL. The fact of approximatting value functions or policies using a deep neural network with millions of parameters usually implies that you'll need a huge quantity of data, or experience.
And regarding to your specific question:
In the comments, I've asked a few questions about the specific features of your problem. I was trying to figure out if you really need RL to solve the problem, since it's not the easiest technique to apply. On the other hand, if you really need RL, it's not clear if you should use a deep neural network as approximator or you can use a shallow model (e.g., random trees). However, these questions an other potential optimizations require more domain knowledge. Here, it seems you are not able to share the domain of the problem, which could be due a numerous reasons and I perfectly understand.
You have estimated the number of required episodes to solve the problem based on some empirical studies using a smaller version of size 20*10 matrix. Just a caution note: due to the curse of the dimensionality, the complexity of the problem (or the experience needed) could grow exponentially when the state space dimensionalty grows, although maybe it is not your case.
That said, I'm looking forward to see an answer that really helps you to solve your problem.
My team has been using the Z3 solver to perform passive learning. Passive learning entails obtaining from a set of observations a model consistent with all observations in the set. We consider models of different formalisms, the simplest being Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA) and Mealy machines. For DFAs, observations are just positive or negative samples.
The approach is very simplistic. Given the formalism and observations, we encode each observation into a Z3 constraint over (uninterpreted) functions which correspond to functions in the formalism definition. For DFAs for example, this definition includes a transition function (trans: States X Inputs -> States) and an output function (out: States -> Boolean).
Encoding say the observation (aa, +) would be done as follows:
out(trans(trans(start,a),a)) == True
Where start is the initial state. To construct a model, we add all the observation constraints to the solver. We also add a constraint which limits the number of states in the model. We solve the constraints for a limit of 1, 2, 3... states until the solver can find a solution. The solution is a minimum state-model that is consistent with the observations.
I posted a code snippet using Z3Py which does just this. Predictably, our approach is not scalable (the problem is NP-complete). I was wondering if there were any (small) tweaks we could perform to improve scalability? (in the way of trying out different sorts, strategies...)
We have already tried arranging all observations into a Prefix Tree and using this tree in encoding, but scalability was only marginally improved. I am well aware that there are much more scalable SAT-based approaches to this problem (reducing it to a graph coloring problem). We would like to see how far a simple SMT-based approach can take us.
So far, what I have found is that the best Sorts for defining inputs and states are DeclareSort. It also helps if we eliminate quantifiers from the state-size constraint. Interestingly enough, incremental solving did not really help. But it could be that I am not using it properly (I am an utter novice in SMT theory).
Thanks! BTW, I am unsure how viable/useful this test is as a benchmark for SMT solvers.
I want to make a genetic algorithm that solves a shortest path problem in weighted, connected graph. Similar to travelling salesman, but instead of fully-connected graph, it's just connected.
My idea is to randomly generate a path consisting of n-1 nodes for each chromosome in binary form, where numbers indicate nodes in a path. Then I will choose the best depending on sum of weights (if cant go from A to B i would give it penalty) and crossover/mutate bits in it. Will it work? It feels a little like smaller version of bruteforce. Is there a better way?
Thanks!
Genetic algorithm is pretty much "smaller version of bruteforce". It is just a metaheuristic, not an optimization method which has decent convergence guarantees. It basically depends on randomness to provide new solutions, thus it is a "slightly better random search".
So "will it work"? Yes, it will do something, as long as you have enough randomness in mutation it will even (eventually) converge to optimum. Will it work better than a random search? Hard to say, this depends on dozens of factors, not only your encoding, but also all the hyperparameters used etc. in general genetic algorithms are about trials and errors. In particular representation of chromosomes which does not loose any information (yours does not) does not matter, meaning that everything depends on clever implementation of crossover and mutation (as long as chromosomes do not loose any information they are all equivalent).
Edited.
You can use permutation coding GA. In permutation coding, you should give the start and end points. GA searches for the best chromosome with your fitness function. Candidate solutions (chromosomes) will be like 2-5-4-3-1 or 2-3-1-4-5 or 1-2-5-4-3 etc. So your solution depends on your fitness function. (Look at GA package for R to apply permutation GA easily.)
Connections are constraints for your problem. My best advice is create a constraint matrix like that:
FirstPoint SecondPoint Connected
A B true
A C true
A E false
... ... ...
In standard TSP, just distances are considered. In your fitness function, you have to consider this matrix and add a penalty to return value for each false.
Example chromosome: A-B-E-D-C
A-B: 1
B-E: 1
E-D: 4
D-C: 3
Fitness value: 9
.
Example chromosome: A-E-B-C-D
A-E: penalty
E-B: 1
B-C: 6
C-D: 3
Fitness value: 10 + penalty value.
Because your constraint is a hard constraint, you can use max integer value as the penalty. GA will find the best solution. :)
I am implementing a SARSA(lambda) model in C++ to overcome some of the limitations (the sheer amount of time and space DP models require) of DP models, which hopefully will reduce the computation time (takes quite a few hours atm for similar research) and less space will allow adding more complexion to the model.
We do have explicit transition probabilities, and they do make a difference. So how should we incorporate them in a SARSA model?
Simply select the next state according to the probabilities themselves? Apparently SARSA models don't exactly expect you to use probabilities - or perhaps I've been reading the wrong books.
PS- Is there a way of knowing if the algorithm is properly implemented? First time working with SARSA.
The fundamental difference between Dynamic Programming (DP) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) is that the first assumes that environment's dynamics is known (i.e., a model), while the latter can learn directly from data obtained from the process, in the form of a set of samples, a set of process trajectories, or a single trajectory. Because of this feature, RL methods are useful when a model is difficult or costly to construct. However, it should be notice that both approaches share the same working principles (called Generalized Policy Iteration in Sutton's book).
Given they are similar, both approaches also share some limitations, namely, the curse of dimensionality. From Busoniu's book (chapter 3 is free and probably useful for your purposes):
A central challenge in the DP and RL fields is that, in their original
form (i.e., tabular form), DP and RL algorithms cannot be implemented
for general problems. They can only be implemented when the state and
action spaces consist of a finite number of discrete elements, because
(among other reasons) they require the exact representation of value
functions or policies, which is generally impossible for state spaces
with an infinite number of elements (or too costly when the number of
states is very high).
Even when the states and actions take finitely many values, the cost
of representing value functions and policies grows exponentially with
the number of state variables (and action variables, for Q-functions).
This problem is called the curse of dimensionality, and makes the
classical DP and RL algorithms impractical when there are many state
and action variables. To cope with these problems, versions of the
classical algorithms that approximately represent value functions
and/or policies must be used. Since most problems of practical
interest have large or continuous state and action spaces,
approximation is essential in DP and RL.
In your case, it seems quite clear that you should employ some kind of function approximation. However, given that you know the transition probability matrix, you can choose a method based on DP or RL. In the case of RL, transitions are simply used to compute the next state given an action.
Whether is better to use DP or RL? Actually I don't know the answer, and the optimal method likely depends on your specific problem. Intuitively, sampling a set of states in a planned way (DP) seems more safe, but maybe a big part of your state space is irrelevant to find an optimal pocliy. In such a case, sampling a set of trajectories (RL) maybe is more effective computationally. In any case, if both methods are rightly applied, should achive a similar solution.
NOTE: when employing function approximation, the convergence properties are more fragile and it is not rare to diverge during the iteration process, especially when the approximator is non linear (such as an artificial neural network) combined with RL.
If you have access to the transition probabilities, I would suggest not to use methods based on a Q-value. This will require additional sampling in order to extract information that you already have.
It may not always be the case, but without additional information I would say that modified policy iteration is a more appropriate method for your problem.
As far as I understand, admissibility for a heuristic is staying within bounds of the 'actual cost to distance' for a given, evaluated node. I've had to design some heuristics for an A* solution search on state-spaces and have received a lot of positive efficiency using a heuristic that may sometimes returns negative values, therefore making certain nodes who are more 'closely formed' to the goal state have a higher place in the frontier.
However, I worry that this is inadmissible, but can't find enough information online to verify this. I did find this one paper from the University of Texas that seems to mention in one of the later proofs that "...since heuristic functions are nonnegative". Can anyone confirm this? I assume it is because returning a negative value as your heuristic function would turn your g-cost negative (and therefore interfere with the 'default' dijkstra-esque behavior of A*).
Conclusion: Heuristic functions that produce negative values are not inadmissible, per se, but have the potential to break the guarantees of A*.
Interesting question. Fundamentally, the only requirement for admissibility is that a heuristic never over-estimates the distance to the goal. This is important, because an overestimate in the wrong place could artificially make the best path look worse than another path, and prevent it from ever being explored. Thus a heuristic that can provide overestimates loses any guarantee of optimality. Underestimating does not carry the same costs. If you underestimate the cost of going in a certain direction, eventually the edge weights will add up to be greater than the cost of going in a different direction, so you'll explore that direction too. The only problem is loss of efficiency.
If all of your edges have positive costs, a negative heuristic value can only over be an underestimate. In theory, an underestimate should only ever be worse than a more precise estimate, because it provides strictly less information about the potential cost of a path, and is likely to result in more nodes being expanded. Nevertheless, it will not be inadmissible.
However, here is an example that demonstrates that it is theoretically possible for negative heuristic values to break the guaranteed optimality of A*:
In this graph, it is obviously better to go through nodes A and B. This will have a cost of three, as opposed to six, which is the cost of going through nodes C and D. However, the negative heuristic values for C and D will cause A* to reach the end through them before exploring nodes A and B. In essence, the heuristic function keeps thinking that this path is going to get drastically better, until it is too late. In most implementations of A*, this will return the wrong answer, although you can correct for this problem by continuing to explore other nodes until the greatest value for f(n) is greater than the cost of the path you found. Note that there is nothing inadmissible or inconsistent about this heuristic. I'm actually really surprised that non-negativity is not more frequently mentioned as a rule for A* heuristics.
Of course, all that this demonstrates is that you can't freely use heuristics that return negative values without fear of consequences. It is entirely possible that a given heuristic for a given problem would happen to work out really well despite being negative. For your particular problem, it's unlikely that something like this is happening (and I find it really interesting that it works so well for your problem, and still want to think more about why that might be).